Reid postpones vote to “give everyone as much room as possible” for deal; Update: $2.8T in cuts and debt-ceiling boost, no tax hike?

posted at 11:45 pm on July 30, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

The late breaking news from the nation’s capital tonight is that the late-breaking news from the capital early tomorrow morning has been postponed:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) announced shortly after 10 p.m. Sunday that he would postpone a vote on his bill to raise the debt limit to give negotiators at the White House more time to work.

He said the Senate would vote on his plan at 1:00 p.m. Sunday, instead of 1:00 a.m., as was originally scheduled. …

“I believe we should give everyone as much room as possible to do their work,” he said. “I spoke to the White House, quite a few times this evening, and they’ve asked me to give everyone as much time as possible to reach an agreement if one can be reached.”

The Senate adjourned at 10:13 p.m. Saturday and will reconvene at noon Sunday.

Translastion: The remarks by John Boehner and Mitch McConnell earlier today appear to have been accurate. CBS’ Mark Knoller had been tweeting earlier that Dan Pfeiffer was poo-pooing the notion that a deal was brewing, but that he has “covered WH long enough to know when pool kept late on Sat night something’s going on.” And as I predicted earlier tonight, the first stage may be a very short-term debt-limit increase to get time to finalize a deal:

If they get a tentative deal, Pres Obama will agree to short term extension of debt limit to allow time to enact deal.

If Obama told Reid to extend the vote for another 12 hours, then the White House must figure that they’re close to a deal.

Update: Jimmie Bise links to ABC, which reports the tentative parameters of the deal:

Debt ceiling increase of up to $2.8 trillion

Spending cuts of roughly $1 trillion

Vote on the Balanced Budget Amendment

Special committee to recommend cuts of $1.8 trillion (or whatever it takes to add up to the total of the debt ceiling increase)

Committee must make recommendations before Thanksgiving recess

If Congress does not approve those cuts by late December, automatic across-the-board cuts go into effect, including cuts to Defense and Medicare.

So Obama gets all of the increase in one fell swoop, but no tax hikes, apparently, plus a total of $2.8 trillion in reductions for projected spending (none of the plans actually made cuts in spending) in areas guaranteed to hurt both parties. The vote on the BBA is a win for Boehner, but only in the sense that Republicans get Democrats on the record for opposing it. It’s a deal we could have reached two weeks ago, but were never going to reach until time ran out.

2.8 trillion in deficit reduction with $1 trillion locked in through discretionary spending caps over 10 years and the remainder determined by a so-called super committee.

The Super Committee must report precise deficit-reduction proposals by Thanksgiving.

The Super Committee would have to propose $1.8 trillion spending cuts to achieve that amount of deficit reduction over 10 years.

If the Super Committee fails, Congress must send a balanced-budget amendment to the states for ratification. If that doesn’t happen, across-the-board spending cuts would go into effect and could touch Medicare and defense spending.

No net new tax revenue would be part of the special committee’s deliberations.

I expect plenty of hyperventilating at the term “Super Committee,” but it’s basically the kind of ad hoc committee that Congress can authorize at any time. It sounds a lot like the BRAC process used by Congress to identify military bases for closure. The prohibition on net tax revenue gains is a big, big win for Republicans if it holds. I should note that Jimmie Bise in his post believes that the second round of cuts might be actual cuts; if so, then this is an even bigger win.

Note too that the second round of cuts appears to be guaranteed; if the Super Commission can’t agree on specific and precise reductions, then an across-the-board cut goes into place.

Update III: Jen Rubin hears the same deal from the offices of two “senior” Republicans on the Hill.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Comments

The purse (money) is controlled by the United States House of Representatives…

Nothing will happen unless the House of Representatives agree to it.

That means the Senate and the President better come up with something pretty damn close to what the House wants.

If they don’t… Nothing will pass.

freedomplow on July 31, 2011 at 2:09 AM

Boehner is negotiating from a position of weakness. He is starting from the assumption that the debt limit will be raised because it must be raised. The debt limit is meaningless as a “limit” if Congress can ignore it by statutory fiat.

Tell me. Why is it that when Rush or Mark Levin start praising a Tea Party candidate, their coffers start filling? When a post on RedState proclaims that we must “burn Mike Castle in effigy,” why does suddenly a low-profile perennial candidate transmute into a conservative hero?

KingGold: Actually, I think that’s true of conservatives in general, not just Tea Party candidates. What I am saying is that if Rush or Levin starts praising any GOP candidate, their coffers start filling. It’s not just the Tea Party. If Rush or Levin praise more Tea Party candidates than other GOP candidates, that’s an reflection on Rush or Levin, not the Tea Party.

Might I suggest that the same won’t happen for a moderate candidate because they are not viewed as conservative?

You’re preaching to the choir. I know all that and I agree but until we get the Senate and the White House there’s zero chance of any of that happening no matter how much we know it has to happen in order to save this country. Boehner is doing what he can with one half of 1 branch of 3 branches of govt. I wish he could and would do more but…

KingGold: Actually, I think that’s true of conservatives in general, not just Tea Party candidates. What I am saying is that if Rush or Levin starts praising any GOP candidate, their coffers start filling. It’s not just the Tea Party.

If Rush or Levin praise more Tea Party candidates than other GOP candidates, that’s an reflection on Rush or Levin, not the Tea Party.

Might I suggest that the same won’t happen for a moderate candidate because they are not viewed as conservative?

Scott H on July 31, 2011 at 2:14 AM

I think the more important questions is why constitutionalists like Levin and Rush threaten him so? What are you scared of King?

And what are your motives…..why do you constantly marginalize tough conservatives, yet never blast reid and obama for their refusal to “compromise”?

Might I suggest that the same won’t happen for a moderate candidate because they are not viewed as conservative?

Scott H on July 31, 2011 at 2:14 AM

The problem is that moderate candidates are actively worked against because of the RINO-hunt mentality. And I would suggest to you that even Tea Partiers in Delaware would have grudgingly accepted Mike Castle as a means to flip the Senate seat had they not been spurred to action by our most strident information brokers.

After all, they’d been holding their nose and voting for the man for twenty years. What was another one going to hurt?

The problem is that moderate candidates are actively worked against because of the RINO-hunt mentality. And I would suggest to you that even Tea Partiers in Delaware would have grudgingly accepted Mike Castle as a means to flip the Senate seat had they not been spurred to action by our most strident information brokers.

After all, they’d been holding their nose and voting for the man for twenty years. What was another one going to hurt?

KingGold on July 31, 2011 at 2:20 AM

Dude, Mike Castle in that seat would not have made a difference in flipping the Senate to Republican control. No exit poll taken anywhere could possibly lead to that conclusion in any rational manner. The Senate was an uphill battle to begin with.

I’m no happier than anyone about the way Delaware panned out, but given the electoral climate that kept sending Sheriff Joe back to the senate, I feel like at least it was an honest loss.

Now, what DE has to do with Republican spinelessness on the debt ceiling escapes me. I’m sure you’re going to continue to try to hammer home the point that DE was an epic disaster even though we won on-balance nationwide, and therefore we should continue compromising with Democrats just like we have been since 1989. But you might want to stop flogging that horse before it really starts rotting.

A liberal media whipping up low-information voters isn’t going to change until a lot of ponybald old guys finally pull the trigger and retire. And with as polarized an electorate as we have right now, where three percent can decide an election, low-information voters and the media lies that push them to the polls cannot be ignored.

One of the biggest traps with low-information voters is tl;dr. It’s what got the GOP with Clinton’s impeachment. And this whole budget issue in general is not getting traction. It’s green eyeshades and boring to far too many low-information voters. If you can’t explain why you’re right and the other guy is wrong such that an eighth-grade Justin Bieber fan can understand it, the gap in understanding will be fed by the liberal media.

While we call each other RINOs, hobbits, and nuts over minutiae in budget bills, it’s becoming clearer that the Executive Branch under Holder and 0bama may have authorized or had knowledge of guns getting shipped into Mexico. Where people are shooting each other with frickin’ grenade launchers. My autistic six-year-old could tell you what all is wrong with that.

Boehner’s strategery here is to make the Democrats take responsibility by making sure they will take the blame. A second bill was sent up to prove that the House was serious about sending up a debt ceiling plan and denying the Dems the excuse that CCB was unacceptable. The Democrats intended to bat back anything the House sent up short of tax increases and a “clean” debt limit increase. Now, tax increases seem to be off the table, the 0bama Administration is likely to revisit this whole thing again before the election, and there are going to be some decent spending cuts. Don’t screw up the strategery looking for a pony and ice cream.

Yakko: The main point is that, judging by 2000-2006, there’s zero chance of fiscal restraint breaking out in the GOP even if they win next year.

Scott H on July 31, 2011 at 2:16 AM

Certainly not absent hectoring from the “unreasonable tea party hobbits.”

gryphon202 on July 31, 2011 at 2:18 AM

That’s just it, prior to the Tea party movement I would’ve had zero faith in the GOP to get much of anything done but with the Tea Party.. maybe, just maybe, this country can be saved. It’s a long shot… but a shot.

Well, at least the immigration problem will be solved. Once the economy tanks and chaos ensues, people will probably be fleeing the country.

Pattosensei on July 31, 2011 at 12:03 AM

My tinfoil hat waves tell me that if there is a shutdown of retail and fuel deliveries, medicines, lots of gas pumps with little baggies covering the handles, no electricity for a week or so we’ll buckle and be eternally grateful to Dear Leader for saving us and getting everything running again.

In order to flush out the hotheads and make examples, it will be more than a week. I keep wondering where all that “stimulus” money really went. I’m thinking that it was mostly a slush fund to cover expenses during such a scenario and get services back up and running. Maybe even cover the banks’ losses in mortgage and credit card payments because few will actually be reporting to work and getting paid.

Just have this nagging feeling that the Captain wants us to all get our minds right.

It is so clear what the Tea Party and Conservatives want to do. Very simple and easy to understand.Stop raising the chance to borrow more money and quit using the credit card. This litmus test also exposes who won’t compromise even under heavy political pressure. Those who break, and make excuses to raise the debt ceiling have been lit up like a Christmas tree for all to see by their own words and actions.

It is good to see some folks in Congress who will hold the line as Reagan did with SDI with the Soviets. Or GW with Iraq and the war on terror. The world is always a better place when these type of people pass their test on saying no to compromise and not letting the other side get their way with no opposition.

It is good to see some folks in Congress who will hold the line as Reagan did with SDI with the Soviets. Or GW with Iraq and the war on terror. The world is always a better place when these type of people pass their test on saying no to compromise and not letting the other side get their way with no opposition.

Bravo Tea Party….

dec5 on July 31, 2011 at 3:08 AM

Reagan seems to have been his own man…not sure about Obama. Can’t decide if he’s politically astute or if he’s the front man for some group? Doesn’t come across as being particularly brilliant when speaking, especially off TOTUS.

I used to scoff at all this Illuminati, NWO, Rothschild conspiracy theory stuff…but actually things make more sense if one assumes that they’re actually the ones who control the majority of the wealth and power and have for quite some time now. Thesis and antithesis = synthesis.

Been aware for many years now about a lot of the bull$%#t fed to us by Marxist historians, Corporatists, the LSM, Madison Avenue, our federal government at large and unfortunately many Conservative Patriotic Americans.

Also been thinking a lot lately of all the big companies that miraculously survived the “Great Depression” and made profits to boot…about the German and Japanese companies that survived the War quite well thank you very much, and came out on top while many of the (expendable) politicians and generals were hung.

We at least need enough room in the debt ceiling to pay for the spending already authorized by this Congress, don’t we? Or are people saying, “Spend it and skip out on the bill” now?

Default – whether by not paying our bond interest or not paying or delaying payment on ANY other obligation, the ratings agencies don’t care, just ask Greece if you don’t believe me – means a downgrade of our credit rating, which means we will pay much more interest on the debt we already have as it rolls over.

For instance, Italy has not defaulted or “de facto” defaulted by not paying bills, but it’s 10 year yield is up to 5.77%, as opposed to our current 2.29%. If we are downgraded by default only down to Italy’s level, that’s nearly $500 billion more every year in interest payments, tripling our interest costs. It’s a hole we can’t dig out of.

But some people want to risk this to prove some point? Knowing all the while Obama and Reid will never agree to the demands?

It’s just insane.

Boehner is negotiating from a position of weakness. He is starting from the assumption that the debt limit will be raised because it must be raised. The debt limit is meaningless as a “limit” if Congress can ignore it by statutory fiat.

gryphon202 on July 31, 2011 at 2:11 AM

When you don’t understand the subject, you could just not say anything.

The debt limit is set by Congress in the first place. Of course they can change it at any time, according to law, if the President agrees – or with 2/3 of House and Senate even if he does not.

Everyone except complete idiots know the debt ceiling will rise, as it must. The spending problems may be addressed in the sense of putting on the brakes, but to truly correct things is not possible with Democrats in control of the Senate and White House.

In 1887 Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinborough, had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years prior:

“A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse over loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship.”

“The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:

From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage.”
The Obituary follows:

Born 1776, Died 2012
It doesn’t hurt to read this several times.

Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law in St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the last Presidential election:

Number of States won by: Obama:19 McCain: 29
Square miles of land won by: Obama:580,000 McCain: 2,427,000
Population of counties won by: Obama:127 million McCain: 143 million
Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Obama:13.2 McCain: 2.1

Professor Olson adds: “In aggregate, the map of the territory McCain won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of the country.

Obama territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in low income tenements and living off various forms of government welfare…”
Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the “complacency and apathy” phase of Professor Tyler’s definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation’s population already having reached the “governmental dependency” phase.

If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegal’s – and they vote –then we can say goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years.

This is truly scary! Of course we are not a democracy, we are a Constitutional Republic . Someone should point this out to Obama. Of course we know he and too many others pay little attention to The Constitution. There couldn’t be more at stake than on Nov 2012.

We’re not going to correct generations of entitlement mentality in one vote. This is a good first step walking it back, as tax increases are off the table and the debt limit raise is no longer an automatic. And as long as trillion dollar deficits remain, the issue is not off the table for Obama in 2012.

So, not spending money that wasn’t going to be spent anyway, and is/was not part of any budget, money that does not exist and never will, is some sort of legit way to declare we “saved” money?

These people and Obama have a lot in common….remember that tired old “jobs saved” by the stimulus trick?

Unless matching cuts in actual federal spending are equal to or more than the proposed increase in the debt limit…and entered into immediate effect when the bill becomes law, not over a decade or longer…absolutely nothing will be accomplished by any agreement/bill and the Dems and Obama are not only given free rein until well past 2012…but also enabled to blame the GOP for any obstruction of this “perfect” plan.

Damn. Snookered again by the Dems. For what? Just to be able to say, well, ummm, gee, we compromised?

Lincoln in 1860 could have easily compromised. Would have been real easy. No civil war, no 350,000 dead soldiers. But there would be at least two nations occupying what we call the USA…probably more. And Lincoln would be a little remembered one-term President of a USA cut in half…with nothing good to show for his short stint as President. No Memorial in DC, either…no Gettysburg Address for school kids to memorize…no Lincoln pennies. Lincoln who? Oh, that guy from Illinois who screwed the pooch in the name of compromise?

Sometimes one simply must not, should not, compromise.

Seems too many are too willing to compromise because it sounds so nice, seems to be so sociopetal.

ROFL…oh well at least we can all chuckle as we trudge off to the government broom factory in our padded Mao suits, singing “MMM MMM MMM Barack Hussein Obama” and bowing to the 200 foot statue of Michelle Obama as we pass.

ROFL…oh well at least we can all chuckle as we trudge off to the government broom factory in our padded Mao suits, singing “MMM MMM MMM Barack Hussein Obama” and bowing to the 200 foot statue of Michelle Obama as we pass.

So Obama gets all of the increase in one fell swoop, but no tax hikes, apparently, plus a total of $2.8 trillion in reductions for projected spending (none of the plans actually made cuts in spending) in areas guaranteed to hurt both parties.

On first look, I really don’t think this is such a bad bill except for this. I feel very uncomfortable about relying on “projected spending” cuts. That is just BS. If they are counting winding down the wars and other fuzzy, projected crap, then we have been snookered.

I do like the part about across the board cuts if certain deadlines are not met.

•If the Super Committee fails, Congress must send a balanced-budget amendment to the states for ratification. If that doesn’t happen, across-the-board spending cuts would go into effect and could touch Medicare and defense spending.

I also have a problem with this. It would seem that the only way a BBA would be triggered is if the Super Committee fails? If I’m reading that correctly, that would be an epic fail for the GOP if they sign onto anything like that.

Oh, the other thing that concerns me is that the Super Committee will no doubt be comprised of all moderates – the go alongs to get alongs. They will agree to the low-hanging fruit cuts and not deal with the entitlements which are the ticking time bombs. Also, if the BBA is triggered by failure of the committee to make cuts, then we know that a committee of squishes will find any meaningless cuts to keep the trigger from occurring. No, I think the committee should be a blending of all factions of the political spectrum from far left (someone like Pelosi) to far right (Demint comes to mind).

The best part of this deal is that the cuts will put into law soon since the report has to come before Thanksgiving. That way they will become law before the Supreme Court repeals ObamaCare and then we will have some real cuts.

I don’t like this but I think it is good only that we need so many weak folks to actually regain power in both branches. Until that happens any change will be nominal. We have to support candidates now matter how sad they may seem at times. We can clean house after we are in power. We have to have real power and not squander it.

In principle I am with you. The reality is not so simple. Forcing a default could blow the whole thing up. This is a start and it sets the stage for 2012. You do realize that this will be a major issue and folks better have some answers??

I see it as a win if played right. Now that we have turned spending cuts into a priority, the GOP needs to start playing gov programs against each other. If it’s social security vs, the EPA or Obamacare, social security every time.

You’re preaching to the choir. I know all that and I agree but until we get the Senate and the White House there’s zero chance of any of that happening no matter how much we know it has to happen in order to save this country. Boehner is doing what he can with one half of 1 branch of 3 branches of govt. I wish he could and would do more but…

Please hurry 2012, this country can’t take much more.

Yakko77 on July 31, 2011 at 2:15 AM

Of course you can’t get the spending cuts needed to ‘save the country’. Cutting social security isn’t possible without accepting some higher taxes, and the Tea Party refuses to compromise. So instead of getting deep, substantial reform in entitlements, a watered-down version of the bill will emerge.

Cutting social security isn’t possible without accepting some higher taxes, and the Tea Party refuses to compromise. So instead of getting deep, substantial reform in entitlements, a watered-down version of the bill will emerge.

bayam on July 31, 2011 at 9:13 AM

Another post, another lie.

Bayam implies that Oidiot and the Dems ever even considered “deep, substantiual entitlement reform”, when from teh start, they stated clearly they would do no such thing. Who was unwilling to compromise? Please stop with the lying. For once, just once, be honest in a debate.

And, but the way, you can cut spending on things without a tax increase. That is entirely possible. How you claim otherwise demonstrates a complete lack of mathmatical understanding.

so, an idiot and a liar. Not surprising considering your liberalism. One must be both to believe in that ideology. “gee, we can get free stuff from the gov’t forever without ever having to worry about paying for it”

Lincoln in 1860 could have easily compromised. Would have been real easy. No civil war, no 350,000 dead soldiers. But there would be at least two nations occupying what we call the USA…probably more. And Lincoln would be a little remembered one-term President of a USA cut in half…with nothing good to show for his short stint as President. No Memorial in DC, either…no Gettysburg Address for school kids to memorize…no Lincoln pennies. Lincoln who? Oh, that guy from Illinois who screwed the pooch in the name of compromise?

coldwarrior on July 31, 2011 at 7:30 AM

And I believe Benjamin Franklin said we could have simply bribed the corrupt British MPs and gained our freedom without firing a shot. No Bunker Hill, no Valley Forge…

The Lincoln Administration gave us a more powerful Federal government and the Greenback dollar. We still owed money for financing the Civil War when World War I came along (the trailing end of $4 billion +). For all combatants WWI cost something on the order of $250 billion (in 1918 dollars). Where did that money come from and where the heck did it go?

That government also gave us the draft, the idea of creating bureaucratic agencies and the first income tax.

The constants from then to now seem to be enemies including Barbary Pirates, uppity Europeans and the Asian Hordes.

Of course you can’t get the spending cuts needed to ‘save the country’. Cutting social security isn’t possible without accepting some higher taxes, and the Tea Party refuses to compromise. So instead of getting deep, substantial reform in entitlements, a watered-down version of the bill will emerge.

bayam on July 31, 2011 at 9:13 AM

Gee, if only some far-sighted president had tried to reform social security.

No, wait … that actually happened.

If only the Democratic party hadn’t dug in and refused to reform anything, even though social security was clearly about to get too expensive in its current state.

And yet, here you are trying to blame the tea parties for the reform that never happened prior to their existence, while ignoring who actually did try to fix the problem, and who absolutely “refused to compromise.”